Gerald Posner'sinterview
with David Irving (News, last week) was certainly
interesting, but what is it makes the man, and his fellow
revisionists, tick? What driving force, or what
psychological quirk, makes people who claim to be serious
historians resist the current of so much evidence? What
seeker after historical truth can credit any Nazi-defensive
statement when the system was so largely based on
Goebbels' principle that the bigger the lie the more
it would be believed?

If such people have a nostalgic admiration for the Nazis,
then they should celebrate what the Nazis did to the Jews
rather than deny it. Let them be consistent. Then we would
really know with whom we are dealing.

John Hale Nice, France

David Irving is wrong about the eagerness of 'everyone' in
wartime to hand over the Jews. The Italians evaded this by
various stratagems; Denmark resisted, with considerable
success; Bulgaria refused; the Greeks were tricked; and even
the Romanians and Hungarians, despite strong anti-semitism,
fluctuated in response. When a suspicious Admiral
Horthy asked in 1943 what exactly would happen to
deported Jews, however, Hitler told the Hungarian leader
that the Jews would be forced to work, those who resisted
would be killed, and those unable to work would succumb like
animals who have to be put down.
[see below]Camile WatsonGobernuisgach, NW Highlands

Other examples, including The Guardian's special effort,
an article entitled "The Bogeyman of the Nursery"
illustrated by a whole page photo of Mr Irving, are not
posted on this website; reference to them will be found in
the court transcripts. Can
newspapers have an "aggravated" death-wish?

HAVE YOU been
wondering why the two best stallions in the Guardian
Newspapers Ltd stable, The Observer and The Guardian, have
had their knives out for David Irving throughout his lawsuit
against Deborah Lipstadt?